American preparations for invading Iran are complete
'American military operations for a major conventional war with Iran could be implemented any day. They extend far beyond targeting suspect WMD facilities and will enable President Bush to destroy Iran's military, political and economic infrastructure overnight using conventional weapons.

British military sources told the New Statesman, on condition of anonymity, that "the US military switched its whole focus to Iran" as soon as Saddam Hussein was kicked out of Baghdad. It continued this strategy, even though it had American infantry bogged down in fighting the insurgency in Iraq.'

Of course it did - it is the Illuminati agenda and so it is followed whatever.

American preparations for invading Iran are complete, Dan Plesch reveals. Plus Rageh Omaar's insights from Iran and Andrew Stephen on fears George Bush's administration will blunder into war

American military operations for a major conventional war with Iran could be implemented any day. They extend far beyond targeting suspect WMD facilities and will enable President Bush to destroy Iran's military, political and economic infrastructure overnight using conventional weapons.

British military sources told the New Statesman, on condition of anonymity, that "the US military switched its whole focus to Iran" as soon as Saddam Hussein was kicked out of Baghdad. It continued this strategy, even though it had American infantry bogged down in fighting the insurgency in Iraq.

The US army, navy, air force and marines have all prepared battle plans and spent four years building bases and training for "Operation Iranian Freedom". Admiral Fallon, the new head of US Central Command, has inherited computerised plans under the name TIRANNT (Theatre Iran Near Term).

The Bush administration has made much of sending a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf. But it is a tiny part of the preparations. Post 9/11, the US navy can put six carriers into battle at a month's notice. Two carriers in the region, the USS John C Stennis and the USS Dwight D Eisenhower, could quickly be joined by three more now at sea: USS Ronald Reagan, USS Harry S Truman and USS Theodore Roosevelt, as well as by USS Nimitz. Each carrier force includes hundreds of cruise missiles.

Then there are the marines, who are not tied down fighting in Iraq. Several marine forces are assembling, each with its own aircraft carrier. These carrier forces can each conduct a version of the D-Day landings. They come with landing craft, tanks, jump-jets, thousands of troops and, yes, hundreds more cruise missiles. Their task is to destroy Iranian forces able to attack oil tankers and to secure oilfields and installations. They have trained for this mission since the Iranian revolution of 1979.

Today, marines have the USS Boxer and USS Bataan carrier forces in the Gulf and probably also the USS Kearsarge and USS Bonhomme Richard. Three others, the USS Peleliu, USS Wasp and USS Iwo Jima, are ready to join them. Earlier this year, HQ staff to manage these forces were moved from Virginia to Bahrain.

Vice-President Dick Cheney has had something of a love affair with the US marines, and this may reach its culmination in the fishing villages along Iran's Gulf coast. Marine generals hold the top jobs at Nato, in the Pentagon and are in charge of all nuclear weapons. No marine has held any of these posts before.

Traditionally, the top nuclear job went either to a commander of the navy's Trident submarines or of the air force's bombers and missiles. Today, all these forces follow the orders of a marine, General James Cartwright, and are integrated into a "Global Strike" plan which places strategic forces on permanent 12-hour readiness.

The only public discussion of this plan has been by the American analysts Bill Arkin and Hans Kristensen, who have focused on the possible use of atomic weapons. These concerns are justified, but ignore how forces can be used in conventional war.

Any US general planning to attack Iran can now assume that at least 10,000 targets can be hit in a single raid, with warplanes flying from the US or Diego Garcia. In the past year, unlimited funding for military technology has taken "smart bombs" to a new level.

New "bunker-busting" conventional bombs weigh only 250lb. According to Boeing, the GBU-39 small-diameter bomb "quadruples" the firepower of US warplanes, compared to those in use even as recently as 2003. A single stealth or B-52 bomber can now attack between 150 and 300 individual points to within a metre of accuracy using the global positioning system.

With little military effort, the US air force can hit the last-known position of Iranian military units, political leaders and supposed sites of weapons of mass destruction. One can be sure that, if war comes, George Bush will not want to stand accused of using too little force and allowing Iran to fight back.

"Global Strike" means that, without any obvious signal, what was done to Serbia and Lebanon can be done overnight to the whole of Iran. We, and probably the Iranians, would not know about it until after the bombs fell. Forces that hide will suffer the fate of Saddam's armies, once their positions are known.

The whole of Iran is now less than an hour's flying time from some American base or carrier. Sources in the region as well as trade journals confirm that the US has built three bases in Azerbaijan that could be transit points for troops and with facilities equal to its best in Europe.

Most of the Iranian army is positioned along the border with Iraq, facing US army missiles that can reach 150km over the border. But it is in the flat, sandy oilfields east and south of Basra where the temptation will be to launch a tank attack and hope that a disaffected population will be grateful.

The regime in Tehran has already complained of US- and UK-inspired terror attacks in several Iranian regions where the population opposes the ayatollahs' fanatical policies. Such reports corroborate the American journalist Seymour Hersh's claim that the US military is already engaged in a low-level war with Iran. The fighting is most intense in the Kurdish north where Iran has been firing artillery into Iraq. The US and Iran are already engaged in a low-level proxy war across the Iran-Iraq border.

And, once again, the neo-cons at the American Enterprise Institute have a plan for a peaceful settlement: this time it is for a federal Iran. Officially, Michael Ledeen, the AEI plan's sponsor, has been ostracised by the White House. However, two years ago, the Congress of Iranian Nationalities for a Federal Iran had its inaugural meeting in London.

We should not underestimate the Bush administration's ability to convince itself that an "Iran of the regions" will emerge from a post-rubble Iran.

Dan Plesch is a research associate at the School of Oriental and African Studies

One Foot in the Grave: Iran Attack Nearer, More Likely Than Most Suspect
by Chris Floyd, Saturday, 22 March 2008

A very important, very disturbing -- and almost entirely overlooked -- piece appeared on Juan Cole's Informed Comment site this week. It was a guest column by William R. Polk, laying out, in copious and convincing detail, the evidence indicating that the United States will indeed launch a military strike against Iran, most probably before George W. Bush leaves office.

However, even if Bush does hold off for some reason, the processes that Polk describes will almost certainly lead the next president into war with Iran, especially as the three remaining major candidates have forcefully pledged to keep "all options, and I mean, all options on the table" (Polk quotes Barack Obama's bellicose formulation). And none of them are likely to have the political courage that Polk rightly says would be necessary to climb down from the highly aggressive posture that both parties have adopted toward Iran.

Polk is no radical firebrand; indeed, he comes toting heavy Establishment lumber: White House service (under John Kennedy), top academic and institutional posts, weighty books on history and international affairs, etc. Yet he paints as stark a picture of the situation as the most implacable dissident.

One development that has arisen after the article was posted gives added credence to Polk's case. In recent days, both Bush and Dick Cheney have revived the scaremongering threat of an Iranian nuclear bomb that had seemed diffused by the NIE report earlier this year. Of course, that report -- in which America's myriad intelligence agencies declared their consensus view that Iran's nuclear weapons program is moribund -- was itself a more subtle piece of scaremongering. Because the report asserted -- without any credible evidence -- that Iran HAD been building a nuke until 2003. While the headlines focused on the overall conclusion, the Bush Administration made hay with that latter assertion: "See, we told you Iran has been building a nuclear weapon! We were right."

They weren't, of course, but this assertion was a propaganda weapon just waiting to be picked up: and now it has. Bush and Cheney refer to the NIE report as "proof" that Iran has been surreptitiously building nuclear weapons in the recent past -- and therefore could be secretly building them again right now. Cheney was very explicit about this during his recent tour of Iraq and other stops in the Middle East -- a trip that many have noted carries sinister echoes of a similar jaunt he made around the region just before the invasion of Iraq. As AP notes:

Vice President Dick Cheney retained his tough stance against Iran on Wednesday and said the U.S. is uncertain if Tehran has restarted the nuclear weaponization program that a U.S. intelligence report says it halted in 2003...Critics of the Bush administration said the report should dampen any campaign for a U.S. confrontation with Iran.

But Cheney that that while the NIE said Iran had a program to develop a nuclear warhead, it remains unclear if it has resumed that activity.

"What it (the NIE) says is that they have definitely had in the past a program to develop a nuclear warhead; that it would appear that they stopped that weaponization process in 2003. We don't know whether or not they've restarted," he said.

Bush too has been pushing this line, most recently in an interview with a government-funded Farsi-language radio station piping White House propaganda into Iran itself. As Dan Froomkin notes, Bush repeated the lie he has often told, asserting that Iran has "declared they want to have a nuclear weapon to destroy people." Iran has always declared the opposite, of course. Bush also echoed Cheney's provocative "mystficiation" about the current state of the alleged Iranian weapons program. As Bush put it: "They've hidden programs in the past and they may be hiding one now, who knows?"

As Polk points out, Bush has made pre-emptive war a cardinal tenet of the official U.S. national security policy, declaring that America "will not wait" for potential security threats to develop, but will "confront challenges earlier and more comprehensively, before they are allowed to mature...In all cases, we will seek to seize the initiative and dictate the tempo, timing, and direction of military operations."

Under such a policy, uncertainty about a potential threat actually becomes a spur to military action. Cheney has long been an evangelist for the "one-percent solution;" i.e., if there is even a one percent chance that some threat might prove true, you must act as if the danger is 100 percent certain to occur. This paranoid lunacy -- or shrewd marketing device to guarantee non-stop boodle from war profiteering -- is now the official governing philosophy of America's foreign policy.

You must read Polk's entire piece to get the full weight and impact of the facts he marshals. But below are a few pertinent excerpts:

The article [a piece in US News and World Report outlining "six signs that the U.S. may be headed for war in Iran"] curiously passes over in silence the much more impressive build-up of naval power in the Persian Gulf. As of the last report I have seen, a major part of the U.S. Navy is deployed in and around the Persian Gulf. The numbers are stunning and include not only a vast array of weapons, including nuclear weapons, cruise and other missiles and hundreds of aircraft but also “insertion” (invasion) forces and equipment. Even then, these already deployed forces amount to only a fraction of the total that could be brought to bear on Iran because aircraft, both bombers and troop and equipment transports, stationed far away in Central Asia, the Indian Ocean, Europe and even in America can be quickly employed .

Of course, deploying forces along Iran’s frontier does not necessarily mean using them. At least that is what the Administration says. However, as a historian and former participant in government, I believe that having troops and weapons on the spot makes their use more likely than not. Why is that?

It is because a massive build-up of forces inevitably creates the “climate” of war. Troops and the public, on both sides, come to accept its inevitability. Standing down is difficult and can entail loss of “face.” Consequently, political leaders usually are carried forward by the flow of events. Having taken steps 1, 2 and 3, they find taking step number 4 logical, even necessary. In short, momentum rather than policy begins to control action. As Barbara Tuchman showed in her study of the origins of the First World War, The Guns of August, even though none of the parties really wanted to go to war, none could stop the process. It was the fact that President Kennedy had been reading Tuchman’s book just before the Cuban Missile Crisis, I believe, that made him so intent on not being “hijacked by events.” His restraint was unusual. More common is a surrender to “sequence” as was shown by the 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It would have taken a major reversal of policy – and considerable political bravery -- to halt either invasion once the massive build-up was in place. No such effort was made then. Will it be now? I think the odds are against it.

Later, viewing the attack in a larger context, Polk writes:

Thus, even short of a nuclear Armageddon, the “Long War” advocated by the Neoconservatives would spread misery, violence, starvation, disease and death. The “fabric” that holds societies together would be shredded so that a chaos even Hobbes could not have imagined would become common over much of the world. The worst affected would be the poor nations but even rich societies would be corrupted and crippled. Reacting over a generation or more to fear of terrorism and the emotional “blow-back” of war, they would lose faith in law, civil liberties, indeed civil society in general. Strong men would come to the fore proclaiming that survival justifies giving up the civic, cultural and material good life. Step by step along the path of the long war, we could fall into the nightmare George Orwell laid out in his novel 1984.

If this is even a remote and unlikely danger, and I believe it is far more than that, we would be foolish indeed not to try to find means to avoid taking any steps – of which war with Iran would be not a step but a leap -- toward it.

Again, the complex and detailed case Polk puts together should be read in full. But its overall message about a catastrophic and murderous war with Iran is unmistakable: the hour is much, much later than we think.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Chris Floyd has been a writer and editor for more than 25 years, working in the United States, Great Britain and Russia for various newspapers, magazines, the U.S. government and Oxford University. Floyd co-founded the blog Empire Burlesque, and is also chief editor of Atlantic Free Press. He can be reached at cfloyd72@gmail.com.
This column is republished here with the permission of the author.

_________________"The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell.

Tehran has warned on numerous occassions that any attack launched against it shall be met with a 'crushing response'

"I'm always thinking about War" -Bush quote from '911 False Flag'

A US attack on Iran will be accompanied by Martial Law in the USA, the 'postponement' of the 2008 election and an overt military junta taking over the USA and Canada. Dissenters will be rounded up and dealt with.

Russia may retaliate. WWIII breaks out.

Internment Camps ready in USA

Broon will be under strict orders to do whatever is necessary to deal with UK dissenters. The stock market will collapse and oil will skyrocket in price. All this will justify Britain being put under Emergency Regulations, curfew and if & when necessary following provoked rioting, Martial Law.

Israel has entered the last phase of its war preparations against Iran. Recent resignation of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, a proponent of negotiations and concessions, and several other factors speak well for the imminent war. Israel’s recent creation of the US missile defense shield can be another addition on the list. The US administration also tries to use the Israeli forces to play a dirty trick on Russia.

The resignation of the Israeli prime minister has become another reason to raise the subject of imminent war between Israel and Iran. Many Israeli politicians dislike Ehud Olmert’s views on the need to conduct negotiations with neighboring states, as well as his intention to discuss an opportunity to return Golan Heights to Syria.

There are other aspects which testify to a possible war in the nearest future. The USA is going to ship a radar station to Israel to track down missile launches. Furthermore, the United States intends to use the radar together with Israel . The USA will provide Israel with early missile launch prevention information, as well as technical and financial aid for the creation of the missile defense system.

According to Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, the radar station will be deployed in Israel before the new US administration officially takes the White House in January 2009.

The US administration believes that the radar station is required to defend Israel against Iranian missiles. It does not go about the deployment of interceptor missiles yet. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the distance to Iran is almost the same as the distance to Russia, which vehemently opposes the deployment of US missile system in Europe.

The station will give the USA an opportunity to use its radar towards Russia freely, without any explanations or control. In addition, the station will give Israel more confidence in its war preparations.

Israel acts by the law of war and seriously prepares to attack Iran’s nuclear objects. It transpired that the top Israeli administration had had a secret meeting with architect of Operation Opera, Retired General Aviam Sela. It was Sela, who planned the surprised Israeli air strike against the Iraqi nuclear reactor 27 years ago. In addition to Opera, the general also elaborated and conducted several operations to destroy Syrian air defense batteries in Lebanon during the First Lebanese War in 1982.

Israeli officials have been talking about Iranian nuclear threat for about a decade. However, now is the time, when Tel Aviv seriously considers a question about the use of military force against Iran . The nuclear issue is obviously the key question in the opposition between Iran and Israel, but there is a more global question, which explains why Israel fears Iran.

Iran strives to obtain the status of a regional superpower against the background of its open hostility against Israel. Iran’s views and intentions pose a threat to Israel ’s role and place in the Middle East. Iranian nuclear weapons endanger the existence of the State of Israel even if the weapons are used with the deterrent value only.

One shall assume that Israel may claim its entire responsibility for the start of a military action against Iran, if the action takes place, of course. Ex-head of Mossad, Shabtai Shavit said that Israel would not be waiting for USA’s permission to attack Iran ’s nuclear facilities.

The US administration does not hurry to use its military force against Iran ’s nuclear program. US officials prefer to wage psychological war against Iran, which could also be a good start of a real war.

Nevertheless, there is a number of circumstances, which do not let the USA launch a large-scale military action against Iran. The current political stability in Iraq and Afghanistan leaves much to be desired. A limited contingent of coalition troops in Afghanistan is obviously not enough to conduct large-scale military operations in the south of the war-torn nation. US and coalition troops make up about 200,000 people in the region. The Pentagon cannot provide more.

Iran will not miss a chance to strike back on oil pipelines and oil structures of neighboring Arab states. Even a slight military action in the region may cause serious damage to the world economy. The European Union, China and India will suffer from the possible fuel crisis most. The USA would not mind weaker competitors, of course. It is an open secret that the economies of those industrial giants largely depend on crude shipments from the Persian Gulf. The war could be a good reason.
http://english.pravda.ru/world/asia/105968-0/

A senior European Union diplomat says the perfect time for Israel to strike Iranian nuclear installations 'is between now and January 20'.

A possible Israeli strike against Iran is not completely off the radar," Turkish paper Hurriyet quoted the diplomat as saying.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Friday that Tel Aviv is 'convinced that Iran continues to try to build a nuclear weapon'.

"We don't rule out any option. We recommend others don't rule out any option either," added Barak, in regards to Obama's plans for Iran.

Tehran, a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), denies the Israeli claim, insisting that its enrichment program is solely directed at the civilian applications of the technology.

Israel, meanwhile, argues that the use of military force is a legitimate option in halting Iran's nuclear progress.

"Israelis would consider a move such as this before Bush and Cheney leave," said the EU diplomat, adding that once Obama takes office, Israel's chances of striking Iran would be off the agenda.

President-elect of the United States Barack Obama will replace George W. Bush on January 20. While campaigning for the White House, Obama vowed to engage Iran with direct diplomacy in order to resolve the disputed nuclear issue.

In his first post-election press conference on Friday, Senator Obama said the international community has to mount an effort to prevent 'Iran's development of a nuclear weapon'.

The UN nuclear watchdog, which has extensively monitored Iran's nuclear activities since 2003, concedes that it is not in a position to fully clarify the nature of the Iranian nuclear program.

The agency, however, announced in its latest Iran report that its inspectors have not found any 'components of a nuclear weapon' or 'related nuclear physics studies' in the country.

Israel must stop issuing military threats against Iran
German MP: "It is Israel that is threatening Iran and not the other way around," Norman Paech wrote in an op-ed piece for the Berlin-based daily Der Tagesspiegel. http://www.mathaba.net/rss/?x=611592

Gaza Power Plants totally off

Al Khodary stated in a press conference in Gaza that since the Power Plant is not functioning, hospitals and medical centers would not be able to function. Other basic services, including drinking water wells, will also be out of order.
http://www.imemc.org/article/57658

'Humanitarian disaster' looming in blockaded Gaza Strip
Rights group Amnesty International on Friday urged Israel to allow the immediate passage of humanitarian aid, medical supplies and fuel to the blockaded Gaza Strip, whose 1.4 million people are facing cold and hunger
http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Security/?id=3.0.2707151985

TEHRAN (FNA)- The Bush administration has created the required infrastructure for attacking Iran and delivered his war plan to Obama, a senior Iranian military official said Saturday, adding that Obama's election has provided Iran with a one-year opportunity to increase preparedness.

Addressing a meeting to mark the start of the Week of Basij (mobilization of volunteer forces), lieutenant commander of the General Staff of Iran's Armed Forces Major General Gholam-Ali Rasheed said that US President George Bush has established the infrastructures required in the region for posing a threat to Iran.

"The United States' threats have now found a structural form. They have done the planning for reaching the necessary preparedness to wage a war (against Iran) through setting up military bases, holding (security) pacts, etc.," he said.

The General viewed "northwestern and southeastern Iran as well as the southwestern province of Khuzestan as vulnerable points" the US forces are likely to use if they want to invade Iran, and underlined that the aforementioned areas should become invulnerable within the next one year.

He further urged military officials to leave war rhetoric and expression of foreign policy views to politicians and "accelerate measures to boost Iran's deterrent power".

Considering that the country is now under threat, he said, we should consider measures to prevent entering the stage of actual war.

US forces attacked a Syrian village near the borders with Iraq on October 26, and the raid on Sukkariyah, which took place almost simultaneously with an air raid on a Pakistani village, has raised speculation about the likelihood of similar unilateral strikes by the US troops on other regional states, including the Islamic Republic.

Speculation that Israel could also bomb Iran mounted after a big Israeli air drill in June. In the first week of June, 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters reportedly took part in an exercise over the eastern Mediterranean and Greece, which was interpreted as a dress rehearsal for a possible attack on Iran's nuclear installations.

Israel and its close ally the United States accuse Iran of seeking a nuclear weapon, while they have never presented any corroborative document to substantiate their allegations. Both Washington and Tel Aviv possess advanced weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear warheads.

Iran vehemently denies the charges, insisting that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. Tehran stresses that the country has always pursued a civilian path to provide power to the growing number of Iranian population, whose fossil fuel would eventually run dry.

Iran has, in return, warned that it would target Israel and its worldwide interests in case it comes under attack by the Tel Aviv.

The United States has also always stressed that military action is a main option for the White House to deter Iran's progress in the field of nuclear technology.

Iran has warned that in case of an attack by either the US or Israel, it will target 32 American bases in the Middle East and close the strategic Strait of Hormoz.

An estimated 40 percent of the world's oil supply passes through the waterway.

In a Sep. 11 report, the Washington Institute for the Near East Policy says that in the two decades since the Iran-Iraq War, the Islamic Republic has excelled in naval capabilities and is able to wage unique asymmetric warfare against larger naval forces.
According to the report, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Navy (IRGCN) has been transformed into a highly motivated, well-equipped, and well-financed force and is effectively in control of the world's oil lifeline, the Strait of Hormuz.

The study says that if Washington takes military action against the Islamic Republic, the scale of Iran's response would likely be proportional to the scale of the damage inflicted on Iranian assets.

Meantime, a recent study by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), a prestigious American think tank, has found that a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities "is unlikely" to delay the country's program.

Intensified threats by Tel Aviv and Washington of military action against Iran contradict a recent report by 16 US intelligence bodies which endorsed the civilian nature of Iran's nuclear plans and activities.

Following the US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) and similar reports by the IAEA head - one in November and the other one in February - which praised Iran's truthfulness about key aspects of its past nuclear activities and announced settlement of outstanding issues with Tehran, any effort to impose further sanctions or launch military attack on Iran seems to be completely irrational.

The February report by the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, praised Iran's cooperation in clearing up all of the past questions over its nuclear program, vindicating Iran's nuclear program and leaving no justification for any new UN sanctions.

The UN nuclear watchdog has also carried out at least 14 surprise inspections of Iran's nuclear sites so far, but found nothing to support West's allegations.

Also in another report to the 35-nation Board of Governors, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei confirmed "the non-diversion" of nuclear material in Iran and added that the agency had found no "components of a nuclear weapon" or "related nuclear physics studies" in the country.

The IAEA report confirmed that Iran has managed to enrich uranium-235 to a level "less than 5 percent". Such a rate is consistent with the construction of a nuclear power plant. Nuclear arms production, meanwhile, requires an enrichment level of above 90 percent.

The Vienna-based UN nuclear watchdog continues snap inspections of Iranian nuclear sites and has reported that all "declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for, and therefore such material is not diverted to prohibited activities."

Mohammed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, recently said that Iran remains far from acquiring capabilities to develop nuclear weapons as it is still lacking the key components to produce an atomic weapon.

"They do not have even the nuclear material, the raw unenriched uranium to develop one nuclear weapon if they decide to do so," said the head of the UN nuclear watchdog agency.

Following the said reports by the US and international bodies, many world states have called the UN Security Council pressure against Tehran unjustified, demanding that Iran's case be normalized and returned from the UNSC to the IAEA.

A prominent US think tank has advised Israel to use ballistic missiles against Iran's nuclear sites after deciding on a pre-emptive strike.

As Israelis continue to express willingness to militarily take out Iran's nuclear infrastructure, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has conducted a study on Israeli options for such military plans.

Amid lingering western doubts over the success of any Israeli airstrike against Iran, the CSIS said in its report released on Monday that Israeli ballistic missiles could be the weapon of choice against the facilities.

Israel is assumed to have Jericho missiles capable of hitting targets with an accuracy of a few dozen meters from target, according to Reuters estimates.

"If the Jericho III is fully developed and its accuracy is quite high then this scenario could look much more feasible than using combat aircraft," read the CSIS report.

The most advanced Jerichos carry 750 kg (1,650 lb) conventional warheads and have a range of thousands of kilometers.

According to the CSIS assessment, 42 of such missiles will be able to "severely damage or demolish" Iran's core nuclear sites at Natanz, Esfahan and Arak.

The report comes as experts believe Iran's sites are too distant, dispersed and fortified for Israel to take on alone.

Meanwhile in the White House, President Barack Obama is believed to be laying out plans to engage Iran with diplomacy to resolve the controversy surrounding the Iranian program.

Iran says the only objective of its program is to make use of the civilian applications of the nuclear technology.

Israel, however, accuses the country of having military intentions in its pursuit and says Tehran poses an "existential threat" to Tel Aviv.

Under such claims, Israel, which veils its nuclear arsenal by an "ambiguity" policy, argues that the use of military force is a legitimate option against Iran.

On Monday, Israeli military Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi told top US diplomats in Washington that he is tasked with drawing up contingency plans since a military operation against Iran was a 'concrete possibility'.

Seems to fly in the face of Gordons recent statement that Iran doesnt have nuclear weapon. Or is this saying

"After Israel has flattened your nuclear power plants we would be more than happy to rebuild them and help you develop another Nuclear power programme. (under our control)

Quote:

Gordon Brown: Iran can have nuclear power if it works with the West
Iran and other countries will be allowed to develop a nuclear power capability if they agree not to put the technology to military use, Gordon Brown will say on Tuesday.

The Prime Minister will say that Britain and other Western states will help Iran build civil nuclear plans on condition that it abides by United Nations rules about its energy programmes.

ABC News' Luis Martinez reports: Israel has conducted three military strikes against targets in Sudan since January in an effort to prevent what were believed to be Iranian weapons shipments from reaching Hamas in the Gaza Strip, ABC News has learned.

Earlier this week, CBSNews.com was the first to report that Israel had conducted an airstrike in January against a convoy carrying weapons north into Egypt to be smuggled into the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

But actually, since January, Israel has conducted a total of three military strikes against smugglers transporting what were believed to be Iranian weapons shipments destined for Gaza, a U.S. official told ABC News.

The information matches recent reports from Sudanese officials of two airstrikes in the desert of eastern Sudan and the sinking of a ship in the Red Sea carrying weapons.

Jonathan Peled, a spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, would only say, "No comment," when contacted by ABC News on the matter.

Sudanese officials initially said this week that 39 people riding in 17 trucks were killed in a mid-January airstrike conducted by an unidentified aircraft in a desert area north of the Red Sea port of Port Sudan.

Today, a Sudanese Foreign Ministry representative said there were two separate bombing raids against smugglers in January and February. The Sudanese minister for highways was more specific, saying the airstrikes took place Jan. 27 and Feb. 11.

Israeli officials continue to refuse to confirm or deny the reports of airstrikes, but Thursday Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said, “Israel hits every place it can in order to stop terror, near and far."

In January, the United States signed an agreement with Israel to stop arms smuggling into Gaza. At the time, Israel was conducting a military operation in the Gaza Strip in retaliation for Hamas' firing of rockets on Israeli towns.

Shortly after the agreement was signed, the U.S. Navy twice boarded a Cypriot ship in the Red Sea that was traveling from Iran to Syria and believed to be carrying Iranian weapons bound for Hamas.

After the boardings were inconclusive, the United States asked Egypt and Cyprus to search the vessel when it made ports of call. Cypriot authorities ultimately found material that could be used to manufacture munitions, which they described as a violation of the U.N. ban on Iranian arms exports._________________'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'

“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”

Strike reportedly obliterates Iranian ship at sea 27 Mar 2009 Following unconfirmed reports that the US or Israel attacked a convoy of trucks carrying weapons headed for the Gaza Strip in Sudan, a new report by Sudanese sources cited an additional strike on a ship possibly making its way to Sudan from Iran. "There were indeed two strikes in Sudan, in January and February," Sudan's deputy transportation minister told Channel 10 on Thursday evening. "I cannot confirm that Israel or the US were behind the attack, but I know that the US controls the airspace there," he said. "The second strike was against a ship at sea and it was completely destroyed," another Sudanese official said.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1237727547715&pagename=JPos t/JPArticle/ShowFull

Sudan strike targeted weapons believed capable of hitting Tel Aviv 27 Mar 2009 Alluding to what foreign media reports say was an Israel Air Force strike in Sudan in January, outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned Thursday that no place is out of Israel's reach. The air strike reportedly hit a convoy of 'Iranian arms' passing through Sudan en route to the Gaza Strip. Israeli officials declined to confirm or deny Israel's involvement in the air strike in Sudan. "Everyone can use their imagination. Those who need to know, know there is no place where Israel cannot operate. Such a place doesn't exist," he said.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1074315.htmlhttp://www.legitgov.org/_________________'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'

“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”

Top US commander in the Middle East, General David Petraeus says Israel might choose to attack Iran as a move to halt its nuclear program.

"The Israeli government may ultimately see itself so threatened by the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon that it would take preemptive military action to derail or delay it," Petraeus told the US Congress on Wednesday.

The head of the US Central Command also accused Iran of failing "to provide the assurances and transparency necessary for international acceptance and verification" of the peaceful nature of its program.

Tehran's "obstinacy and obfuscation have forced Iran's neighbors and the international community to conclude the worst about the regime's intention," Bloomberg quoted Petraeus as telling the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Ken Katzman, a Middle East military analyst for the non- partisan Congressional Research Service in Washington, said Petraeus' remarks about a prospective Israeli attack against Iran "was extremely significant, particularly for what he did not say -- that the United States would act to restrain Israel or talk it out of conducting such a strike."

Israel, which is believed to possess the Middle East's only nuclear arsenals, accuses Iran of trying to develop nuclear arms.

Tehran however says its nuclear program is only aimed at meeting the country's energy needs.

Peres, in an interview with Kol Hai Radio, urged Iranian President Mahmoud Admadinejad to enter into talks proposed by U.S. President Barack Obama. If Admadinejad ultimately fails to soften his nuclear stance, "we'll strike him," Peres said Sunday.

IDF preparing for Netanyahu war orders ... to take out Iran's nuclear power sites
Israel is reportedly preparing for a massive attack on Iran's nuclear sites "within days of being given the go-ahead by its new government."
According to a report by The Times, the Israel Defense Force (IDF) is taking every step to ready itself for "what would be a risky raid" on Iranian nuclear facilities.
"Israel wants to know that if its forces were given the green light they could strike at Iran in a matter of days, even hours," one senior Israeli defense official told The Times.
"They are making preparations on every level for this eventuality. The message to Iran is that the threat is not just words," the source added.
To ready itself for the "massive aerial assault" on Iran Israel has moved to equip itself with three Airborne Warning and Control (AWAC) aircraft and regional missions to simulate the attack.
Israel's Home Front Command also announced plans earlier to mobilize the Israeli army for the largest military exercise in its history on June 2.
The nationwide drill is aimed at preparing the public for the retaliation that Israel could face.
The report cites Iran's enrichment facility in Natanz, its heavy water reactor in Arak, and the country's Fuel Manufacturing Plant (FMP) in the central province of Isfahan as prime Israeli targets.
The distance from Israel to at least one of the cited locations is more than 870 miles, for which Israel prepared for by conducting a training exercise last year.
A June report by The New York Times revealed that Israel carried out a major military exercise earlier in the month that appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing of Iranian nuclear installations.
More than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters, helicopters and refueling tankers participated in the maneuvers over the eastern Mediterranean and Greece.
"We would not make the threat [against Iran] without the force to back it," The Times quoted one intelligence official as saying. "There has been a recent move, a number of on-the-ground preparations, that indicate Israel's willingness to act."
The source, however, admitted that it was unlikely that Israel would carry out an attack without receiving "at least tacit approval" from the new US administration.
The Times report comes as earlier on Thursday a Washington think tank cautioned against an Israeli mission to take out Iranian nuclear facilities, saying it is unlikely to be hailed a success.
"A military strike by Israel against Iranian Nuclear Facilities is possible and the optimum route would be along the Syrian-Turkish border then over a small portion of Iraq then into Iran, and back the same route," reads the report by the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS).
"The number of aircraft required, refueling along the way and getting to the targets without being detected or intercepted would be complex and high risk and would lack any assurances that the overall mission will have a high success rate," warned the assessment.
An Israeli strike on Iran is widely believed to require the green light from the Pentagon.
The US Air Force should grant permission to Israeli bombers to fly across Iraq.
Ephraim Kam, the deputy director of the Institute for National Security Studies, played down the prospect of any such permission by President Barack Obama's administration.
"The American defense establishment is unsure that the operation will be successful," he told The Times.
The new US administration has struck a more "reconciliatory tone" in dealing with Iran.
The US Vice President Joe Biden said earlier that he did not believe that Netanyahu would take the risk of attacking Iran, adding, "He would be ill advised to do that."

Israel to go to war with Iran hours after orderhttp://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=91797&sectionid=351020101_________________--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.comhttp://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."

In quotes: Ahmadinejad speech
Diplomats have walked out of a UN conference on racism during a speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Here are some key quotes from his address:

"Today, the human community is facing a kind of racism which has tarnished the image of humanity. In the beginning of the third millennium, the word Zionism personifies racism, that falsely resorts to religion and abuses religious sentiments to hide hatred.

Efforts must be made to put an end to the abuse by Zionists and their supporters of political and international means... Governments must be encouraged and supported in the fight aimed at eradicating this barbaric racism and moving towards reforming the current international mechanisms.

You are all aware of the conspiracy of some powers and Zionist circles against the goals and objectives of this conference... It should be recognised that boycotting such a session is a true indication of supporting the blatant example of racism."

The Strait of Hormuz, near the UAE, carries millions of barrels of crude oil each day [AFP]

The United Arab Emirates has become the world's third-largest importer of weapons after China and India, rising from 16th place in just four years, a Swedish think tank has reported.

The UAE has become the biggest importer of arms in the Middle East, receiving 34 per cent of weapons sent to the region, the Stockholm International Peace Research Insititute (Sipri) says.

In a report on arms transfers, released on Monday, it said the UAE bought 80 F-16E combat aircraft from the United States and and 50 Mirage 2000-9 fighters from France over the last four years.

Owen Fay, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Doha, said the UAE's proximity to Iran could be behind its increased military spend, which is expected to exceed $7bn this year.

He said that in the case of conflict with Iran, the Emirates would need to protect its people and oil supplies that pass through the Strait of Hormuz.

'Ambitious programme'

Mark Bromley, from Sipri, told Al Jazeera the UAE may be increasing its military spend due to high prices in oil.

"States go through periods of consolidation and modernisation with their military," he said.

"It so happens that the UAE is going through a rather ambitious programme of military modernisation.

"In terms of the 'why' we can point to the recent rise in global world oil prices which is of course funding these purchases.

"What we'll see in the future is how these plans are affected by the fall in world oil prices. To date it appears the UAE is relatively unconcerned by that," he said.

The institute also revealed that the volume of weapons being exported to the Middle East has risen by more than a third in the past four years.

Sipri warned that this trend threatens to destabilise the region further.

Pieter Wezeman, a researcher for the institute, said: "While we are a long way from the levels [of imports] reached in the early to mid-1980s, this is still a worrying trend in a region beset by multiple sources of potential conflict and limited intergovernmental trust and transparency".

Sipri found Israel was the second largest receiver of arms in the Middle East, with 22 per cent of the region's imports, followed by Egypt with 14 per cent.

Iran accounted for only five per cent of transfers to the Middle East for 2004 to 2008.

America’s spy chief was sent on a secret mission to Israel to warn its leaders not to launch a surprise attack on Iran without notifying the US Administration.

As Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, prepares to visit Washington, it emerged yesterday that Leon Panetta, the head of the CIA, went to Israel two weeks ago. He sought assurances from Mr Netanyahu and Ehud Barak, the Defence Minister, that their hawkish new Government would not attack Iran without alerting Washington

Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, is in Washington for talks with Barack Obama, the US president.
Netanyahu is expected to focus on Iran's nuclear development and its perceived threat to Israel.
However, the US administration will try to get a commitment on Palestinian statehood, a plan Netanyahu is yet to endorse.
Al Jazeera's Jacky Rowland reports on the chances of progress.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum